Is Psychology science?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Is Psychology a science?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 57 47.5%
  • No.

    Votes: 44 36.7%
  • Maybe?

    Votes: 23 19.2%

  • Total voters
    120

neurosciences

New Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
I'm trying to choose between neuroscience or psychology as a major. I think both are pretty interesting fields of study, however, after getting into an argument with my dad and biology professor I don't know if I could major in psychology. They both insist that psychology isn't a "true science" or a rigorous major. This would be my first exposure to either fields (psych and neuroscience) and I really don't know what to do. So really what do you think about it? Is psychology a legitimate science?

Members don't see this ad.
 
I'm trying to choose between neuroscience or psychology as a major. I think both are pretty interesting fields of study, however, after getting into an argument with my dad and biology professor I don't know if I could major in psychology. They both insist that psychology isn't a "true science" or a rigorous major. This would be my first exposure to either fields (psych and neuroscience) and I really don't know what to do. So really what do you think about it? Is psychology a legitimate science?

I don't know how your university's Neuroscience program is but mine is basically half biology and half psychology. If you are think they are both interesting do Neuroscience! That is why I majored in it.
 
I don't know how your university's Neuroscience program is but mine is basically half biology and half psychology. If you are think they are both interesting do Neuroscience! That is why I majored in it.
do you mean that the neuroscience program is integrated? At this school neuroscience is pretty much a submajor under biology.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
do you mean that the neuroscience program is integrated? At this school neuroscience is pretty much a submajor under biology.

Well at my university it is interdepartmental. It is under the biology department and psychology department.
 
I think it depends on what school you go to, and what courses they offer. I went to a school with a neuroscience major and a psych major in the science department, so a lot of classes in the psych department could be counted as neuro classes ad vice versa. So it really depends on what you do with it. I was a psych major, but a took a lot of classes that were both under the neuro and psych category, or basically psych classes that have a lot of science background.
 
it's a science but not a hard science like physics
do whatever you want, who cares what other people think?
 
At my university psychology is known as one of the easiest majors.
 
Yes psychology is easy but that doesn't make it any less of a science.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
It depends on how psych is being taught at your school. At my school it was taught as a science leading to a bachelor of science degree. I specialized in neuroscience, which at my school had 3 streams (psychological, physiological and pharmacological). I basically did the psychological stream. I took a few courses that were strictly neuroscience, some that were general science (biochem, evolutionary bio, physics, etc), and many that were categorized as psychology (cognition, learning, memory, intelligence, etc).

There is some definite overlap in the 2 fields. I suggest you look at the both the required and optional courses that you can take with each major. Look at the upper level courses and their description. This will give you a good idea of how psych is taught and what is expected of you. (if the psych major doesn't require any science classes, well...) It will also allow you to see what stream interests you more.

Also note that neuroscience will also include studies on the nervous system of non-human animals.
 
No, but the fact that a sizable portion of their 'research' is based on surveys and other dubious methods makes it less of a science.

I'm not sure how I feel about this.
 
No, but the fact that a sizable portion of their 'research' is based on surveys and other dubious methods makes it less of a science.

Psychological research methods are pretty hardcore, but they are brilliantly designed for getting rid of a lot of the muck. Look up the Stroop-Self-objectification test to see how they obtained amazing results. But regardless, the reality is that it's hard to research and study behavior. But calling them dubious, well... I wouldn't that far.

My degree was in psychology, and I don't consider it a real science degree. A lot is based on speculation and questionable data. It creates all these fake experts and reduces people's actions to statistics. In essence, psychology simply borrows from real sciences.
Umm, I don't get why quantifying behaviors is inheritable a bad thing... it's got big application for criminology, economics, education, and certainly medicine sure does quantify behavioral trends and health effects, but that's science, without statistics a science is pretty much a game of anecdotes. And for the bolded, most sciences borrow from each other. Psych borrows for biology, which in tern borrows from physics and chemistry, and so on...


In reality psych can be a very easy major... just as many other majors. However there are without a doubt areas within psychology which are significantly more rigorous than others.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure how I feel about this.

I agree. I think some very valuable data has been gotten from survey research.

OP, if you are interested in psychology, don't worry about it's "prestige" as a "real science." Just do it and fill your prereqs. If your neuroscience program is integrated between bio and psych though... that would be pretty cool.
 
Psychology falls under the blanket of social sciences, which also include sociology, epidemiology, economics, and criminology. Biology and its various fields fall under biological sciences. Physics, chemistry, geology, and their fields fall under physical sciences. They are all sciences, and most of those fields influence each other in the world of research.

Ex. When I was in undergrad, I majored in one of each, and my research since then has been a hybrid of social sciences, biological sciences, and quantum field theory/mathematics/computer science.

That being said, my easiest classes were social science classes, but many of them were also my favorite courses and my most interesting courses. By the way, some of the advances in statistical theory have come from psychology and economics.
 
It's a pseudoscience.
:troll:
No, but the fact that a sizable portion of their 'research' is based on surveys and other dubious methods makes it less of a science.

My degree was in psychology, and I don't consider it a real science degree. A lot is based on speculation and questionable data. It creates all these fake experts and reduces people's actions to statistics. In essence, psychology simply borrows from real sciences.
I disagree with these as well. Psychology is a legitimate application of the scientific method to mental and social phenomena. Because things like behavior may be easier to understand at face value than something abstract or esoteric like molecular orbital theory, psychology can be easier to study in undergrad, but that doesn't mean the research methods or statistical analyses are any less rigorous than those in the biological or physical sciences.
 
No, but the fact that a sizable portion of their 'research' is based on surveys and other dubious methods makes it less of a science.

I highly disagree with this, and with the notion that self-reported or "subjective" data is any less valid than physiological data. If a patient is feeling pain, and you can't find any biological basis for it, does it mean the patient's pain is any less legitimate?
 
Psychology is not a science. This is best explained by the 20th century philosopher Karl Popper.
Yes, psychology follows the empirical method and has a great deal of explanatory power, and these are important characteristics of science. But what makes "social sciences" like psychology different from the "hard sciences" (natural sciences is probably a more useful descriptor here) is falsifiability.
Social sciences can be used to explain any observation. What at first might seem like a strength of social science theory is in fact its weakness. An Alderian psycologist might look at all human behavior and see confirmation of the theory in everything. At first you might think, that sounds like an impressive theory, since everything you observe seems to fit the model! But consider things like this:
1. Man pushes child into water to drown child.
Alderian interpretation: Man suffers from feelings of inferiority so has to prove worth by committing crime
2. Man sacrifices life to save child
Alderian interpretation: Man suffers from feelings of inferiority so has to prove worth by making sacrifice
As you can see here, two opposite observations both serve as "confirmation" for Alderian theory.
What it comes down to is you can interpret human behavior using structural theory, behavioral theory, psychoanalysis theory, etc. and come up with very different conclusions based on observations.
Certainly psychological theories help us interpret observations about behavior and mental processes, but because the theories don't generate risky predictions that could potentially falsify the theory, these theories cannot be considered scientific.
Other philosophers, notably Thomas Kuhn, go on to say that science is not exactly falsifiable. When we make a prediction based on Newtonian physics, for example, and our observations don't match, we assume it's because there was a problem with our experimental design or interpretation of the data and not Newtonian theory because Newtonian theory has been thoroughly tested over a long period of time so it's less likely to be wrong in that situation. However Popper has a point in that social sciences offer different theories which can be used to interpret data but do not lend to rigorous experiments to the same degree as science.
 
Last edited:
Psychology is not a science. This is best explained by the 20th century philosopher Karl Popper.
Yes, psychology follows the empirical method and has a great deal of explanatory power, and these are important characteristics of science. But what makes "social sciences" like psychology different from the "hard sciences" is falsifiability.
Social sciences can be used to explain any observation. What at first might seem like a strength of social science theory is in fact its weakness. An Alderian psycologist might look at all human behavior and see confirmation of the theory in everything. At first you might think, that sounds like an impressive theory, since everything you observe seems to fit the model! But consider things like this:
1. Man pushes child into water to drown child.
Alderian interpretation: Man suffers from feelings of inferiority so has to prove worth by committing crime
2. Man sacrifices life to save child
Alderian interpretation: Man suffers from feelings of inferiority so has to prove worth by making sacrifice
As you can see here, two opposite observations both serve as "confirmation" for Alderian theory.
What it comes down to is you can interpret human behavior using structural theory, behavioral theory, psychoanalysis theory, etc. and come up with very different conclusions based on observations.
Certainly psychological theories help us interpret observations about behavior and mental processes, but because the theories don't generate risky predictions that could potentially falsify the theory, these theories cannot be considered scientific.
Other philosophers, notably Thomas Kuhn, go on to say that science is not exactly falsifiable. When we make a prediction based on Newtonian physics, for example, and our observations don't match, we assume it's because there was a problem with our experimental design or interpretation of the data and not Newtonian theory because Newtonian theory has been thoroughly tested over a long period of time so it's less likely to be wrong in that situation. However Popper has a point in that social sciences offer different theories which can be used to interpret data but do not lend to rigorous experiments to the same degree as science.

What? Your argument might have worked in the time of Freud, but none of those examples are commonplace in modern empirical psychology.
 
.... So basically psychology is not a science because a psychoanalytical approach to explaining a man pushing a child into water is not as objective as looking into a chemical dynamic? Can I ask you what else is not a science either?
 
.... So basically psychology is not a science because a psychoanalytical approach to explaining a man pushing a child into water is not as objective as looking into a chemical dynamic? Can I ask you what else is not a science either?

Don't be mad bro. To Sci majors if it doesn't involve microscopes or complex equations, it's not science.
 
Amemus you seem to be relegating psychology to observation and speculation, ignoring the experimental methods utilized in modern psychological research.

Exactly. We were able to participate in psych experiments for a few extra marks. I distinctly remember sitting in front of a computer screen doing tasks with electro gel goop in my hair and some cap measuring my brain waves.

There are so many schools of thought under the umbrella of "psychology" and so many ways to study and research psychology.
 
No, I'm not ignoring the empirical methods used in psychology. In fact I specifically noted that psychology uses the empirical method in my first post.
Serenade, other fields that use the empirical method but are not exactly scientific would be the other social sciences. A study of economics could be interpreted with a Keynesian school of thought, a Marxist school of thought, etc. No such schools of thought exist for the sciences. Yes we look at scientific problems from different angles (chemical, biological, etc.) but those are merely different aspects that all get put together, not different theories used to interpret the results.
Can you apply the scientific method in psychology research? Absolutely. Where psychology differs is in its ability to interpret data and draw conclusions. In no way am I suggesting that psychology research is invalid or less important; certainly there have been some monumental psychological studies that have enhanced our body of knowledge. And with certain applications of psychology as in neuroscience things are less clear cut.
 
My 2 cents:

Firstly, psychology is a very broad term in itself. Within psychology, you can have a more cognitive approach or you can focus on social interactions and behavior. If you go into the social and behavioral psychology, then this is almost completely under the branch of a social science, which in layman's understanding is not a science. If you go into a more cognitive program, and are dealing with the scientific method (especially when you involve imaging, EEG, etc), you are dealing with a science - this is undeniable.

And here is what I think for your situation:

As a premedical student, and a student in general, its important to (a) study and do well in what you really enjoy and (b) obtain a fund of knowledge that is based in hard sciences for your pre-medical requirements. Here are some things to consider in your decision making:

1) A high GPA in neuroscience/neurobiology is far more impressive than one in psychology (which is typically regarded as an easier major)

2) If the program you are entering is well breadthed, the study of neuroscience will encompass not only the biological aspects to neuroscience, but will also cover aspects of cognitive and behavioral psychology as it pertains to more global aspects of the brain. Depending on your program, you can partake in more electives in this area while completing the necessary biological aspect of it, thus giving you a more psychology feel to it.

If still indecisive, I would go with the neuroscience major, psychology minor. This way everyone's happy!
 
No, I'm not ignoring the empirical methods used in psychology. In fact I specifically noted that psychology uses the empirical method in my first post.
Serenade, other fields that use the empirical method but are not exactly scientific would be the other social sciences. A study of economics could be interpreted with a Keynesian school of thought, a Marxist school of thought, etc. No such schools of thought exist for the sciences. Yes we look at scientific problems from different angles (chemical, biological, etc.) but those are merely different aspects that all get put together, not different theories used to interpret the results.
Can you apply the scientific method in psychology research? Absolutely. Where psychology differs is in its ability to interpret data and draw conclusions. In no way am I suggesting that psychology research is invalid or less important; certainly there have been some monumental psychological studies that have enhanced our body of knowledge. And with certain applications of psychology as in neuroscience things are less clear cut.
Yes, I realize you mentioned the empirical methods psychology uses, but I feel you're mis-characterizing the general interpretation of results in psychology. Psychological theories are, in general, derived the same way "hard" science theories are, and not simply created out of thin air as a guess at how to make all the data make sense.
Have you been in school for psychology? Sure, you can quantify the data of a survey "rigorously," but at the end it requires you take the information given to you at face value, whereas you'll be hard pressed to find a chemist giving out surveys to molecules to find out how they interact.
You disagree with the validity of survey research as a methodology so therefore the whole of psychology is unscientific? That one example isn't enough to argue about the field.
 
For that matter, using the definitions I presented, medicine isn't science either. We make predictions based on what we know usually happens with people who have a patient's symptoms and test results, but medicine fails to get it right all the time. But medicine is most definitely important. Don't think that calling something less scientific makes it worth less.
 
I think there are good applications to psychology, which are backed up by data, but I've also read enough journals to see that the rigor required of psychology are at a much lower threshold. Go to any college and see that 90% of the psychology studies are basically the interpretations of questionnaires answered by 18 to 23 year old kids, whereas in a real science you'll see "this chemical is used by this specific plant in this specific area."

Yes... and behavior is not a chemical, nor is it a tissue, it's a whole step up. Even in cellular or behavioral neuroscience it is never as simple as "real science". There are likely many answers which are likely correct and likely all appear to effect it. The reality is that you're acting like this lack of objectivity is supremely epitomized by psychology when in reality all sciences have it.
On the basis of psychological research, well a group of 18-23 year olds is great for testing stereotype threat, fear, stress, and a lot of other things which impact performance or behavior. They are also pretty good for going under FMRI machines and showing us what parts of the brain are activated under certain situations. But again, everything neuroscience, psychology, and behavioral science related is never as simple as "this chemical does this." The fact is that there is likely many right answers to the same question in behavior, simply because we are more complicated than a single cell or receptor site.

I really don't see why it's so hard to understand that human behavior is not as simple as the set activity of cells or chemicals.....
 
My 2 cents:

Firstly, psychology is a very broad term in itself. Within psychology, you can have a more cognitive approach or you can focus on social interactions and behavior. If you go into the social and behavioral psychology, then this is almost completely under the branch of a social science, which in layman's understanding is not a science. If you go into a more cognitive program, and are dealing with the scientific method (especially when you involve imaging, EEG, etc), you are dealing with a science - this is undeniable.

And here is what I think for your situation:

As a premedical student, and a student in general, its important to (a) study and do well in what you really enjoy and (b) obtain a fund of knowledge that is based in hard sciences for your pre-medical requirements. Here are some things to consider in your decision making:

1) A high GPA in neuroscience/neurobiology is far more impressive than one in psychology (which is typically regarded as an easier major)

2) If the program you are entering is well breadthed, the study of neuroscience will encompass not only the biological aspects to neuroscience, but will also cover aspects of cognitive and behavioral psychology as it pertains to more global aspects of the brain. Depending on your program, you can partake in more electives in this area while completing the necessary biological aspect of it, thus giving you a more psychology feel to it.

If still indecisive, I would go with the neuroscience major, psychology minor. This way everyone's happy!

Yes and yes:thumbup:
 
Do whatever you feel would make you happier, it may be the only chance you have to do it. And yes, psychology is a science, it is a social science with well defined approaches and method (scientific). Lots of people believe because it doesn't deal with crazy formulas, clear cut math or whatever is pretty easy, I don't believe so. Even though I did not major in psychology I majored in a sister field: Social Anthropology and I can tell you that yes, lots of classes are easier than the hard science (a.k.a Natural Sciences) ones. However,at least in anthropology, once you get serious into it and dwell into the theoretical realm (sociology, philosophy,epistemology,etc) it gets pretty difficult pretty fast; very analytically abstract, It's just a different ball game than natural sciences. One of the best and most brilliant profs I ever had was a my "theories of culture and society" class. I also majored in Molecular Biology, and my would not change anything about my choices. In any case, you would bring a different perspective to your application (if not your view of the human condition too)...and that's good...ever heard of "diversity" in the application process?
 
Last edited:
It certainly is not simple, but it doesn't mean that psychology and sociology must be science.

And this is a strawman. Psychology is a science because it uses the scientific method to analyze behavior and behavioral patterns and is not based on opinion or bias. Sorry, but you may want to consider a non-science and go ahead, but it's a science in every right.
 
Psychology is a science because it uses the scientific method to analyze behavior and behavioral patterns and is not based on opinion or bias.

I agree with this.
 
Alchemy -> Chemistry
Psychology -> Neuroscience

The above basicsally sums up how I feel about it. Although I think psychology a bit more useful than alchemy.

Really though, major in whatever you want. As long as you have a job at the end you will be fine.
 
Of course it's a science. Like someone has already stated just like chemistry/physics are physical sciences, biology is a life science, psychology is a social science. And lol at the person above me who compared psychology to alchemy. that my friend is what we call a weak analogy. it would have been better if you had said:
phrenology--->psychology
though neuroscience and psychology overlap, psychology cannot be considered a precursor to neuroscience, considering that they're some aspects of psychology that are NOT entirely biologically based
 
One of my research advisors had a PhD in psychology. His research focuses on the role of stress, drugs, antidepressants, etc on brain structure, performance, gene regulation, protein expression, neural circuits, etc. I had a lot of fun doing rat brain histology, immunohistochemistry and in situ hybridization in specific regions of the rat brain. He still has the 2-3 NIH RO1's which fund his work.

So what's my point? It depends on the kind of psychology :D

That said, even 'soft' psychology can be rigorous, but probably not at the undergraduate level.
 
Now you're putting words in my mouth. I'm not saying all of psychology is bad. I'm saying some of psychology, a quantity that I feel is enough, shows that there is a clear divide as to why psychology is, appropriately, a soft science and not real science.
I'm sorry if you felt I was putting words in your mouth, I should have used your wording that you don't consider it a "real science."
Alchemy -> Chemistry
Psychology -> Neuroscience

The above basicsally sums up how I feel about it. Although I think psychology a bit more useful than alchemy.
Wow.
 
It's a social science.

+1

Not a hard science (by hard, I don't mean greater difficulty haha), but it's a social science.

Why so much psychology hate? Still entertaining though.
 
Last edited:
If psycholgists make hypothesis and test them with experiments, as Pavlov did, then it is science. Pavlov certianly was a scientist. Science by definition should be about making hypothesis- though Newton said he didn't make hypothesis while making them all the time- and tesing them with experiments and make necessory changes to hypothesis to encompass anomalies with respect to original hypothesis.
 
Last edited:
I don't think the nayers ever took cognitive psychology or other 400 level psych class.

Definitely science. Science of the mind and (in case of neuropsych) of the brain.
 
A better question is, what is the definition of a science? Surely the natural and physical sciences do not have a monopoly on that designation.
 
Alchemy -> Chemistry
Psychology -> Neuroscience

The above basicsally sums up how I feel about it. Although I think psychology a bit more useful than alchemy.

Really though, major in whatever you want. As long as you have a job at the end you will be fine.

welp you sure settled that debate with a strong argument
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm trying to choose between neuroscience or psychology as a major. I think both are pretty interesting fields of study, however, after getting into an argument with my dad and biology professor I don't know if I could major in psychology. They both insist that psychology isn't a "true science" or a rigorous major. This would be my first exposure to either fields (psych and neuroscience) and I really don't know what to do. So really what do you think about it? Is psychology a legitimate science?

I think psych would be easier and you'd end up with better grades.
 
I'm trying to choose between neuroscience or psychology as a major. I think both are pretty interesting fields of study, however, after getting into an argument with my dad and biology professor I don't know if I could major in psychology. They both insist that psychology isn't a "true science" or a rigorous major. This would be my first exposure to either fields (psych and neuroscience) and I really don't know what to do. So really what do you think about it? Is psychology a legitimate science?

I'd say psychology is more of a social science. I would go with neuroscience if you plan on being a doctor. But you could always do psychology if it is what you want to do and take the prerequisites for med school.
 
Define science. I'm a neuroscience major in the US but studying psychology in London for this semester. Many courses in their psychology department has a strong neuroscience component to it. In my opinion, an understanding of the morphology and physiology of the brain would undoubtedly be beneficial to grasping certain psychology concepts, which is why they incorporate neuroscience lectures.

I would call neuroscience a science because it integrates molecular and anatomical concepts (from biology) and behavioral manifestations (psychological aspect) into a interdisciplinary subject.

Since neuroscience is part of many psychology courses, it is a science.

What is the point of this thread? To see if PSY courses count for BCPM GPA? If that's the case, I would say yes, because then my sGPA would be a bit higher :laugh:

Also I chose neuroscience because it's more interesting to me than biology and more applicable to everyday life. You also have the freedom to choose a few biology courses that you may like if your school allows you to use biology to satisfy neuroscience electives.
 
Top